By.Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The complainant is running a handicraft unit namely Hrithika handicrafts at Beenachi. She had taken loan from the opposite party for the unit. Subsequently, she paid the entire loan amount, thereafter renewed the loan and obtained Rs.5,00,000/- from Opposite Party bank on 12.07.2017. She has to remit back the loan amount within 12.07.2018. The complainant was regularly paying the instalment. But on 14.11.2017 Opposite Party sent a registered notice informing him that the loan is overdue. Therefore, on 22.04.2017, the complainant remitted Rs.22,000/- towards the loan. Even then, on 06.12.2017, Opposite Party sent another notice directing her to remit the entire balance due alleging that she has failed to remit the amount stated in the notice dated 14.11.2017. The Opposite Party sent these notices to the Complainant even if, there were no dues. Moreover, the bank has withdrawn amount from the account of the Complainant towards cost of the notice. The Complainant had given complaint against the staffs of the bank. For this reason alone, they sent these notices to the Complainant. Therefore there is deficiency in their service which caused loss to the Complainant. Hence this complaint to get Rs.1,00,000/- from the Opposite Party as compensation and cost of this complaint.
3. The Opposite Party filed version which runs as follows:-
The Complainant filed this complaint by suppressing the material facts. They admitted that the Complainant availed loan of Rs.5,00,000/-from Opposite Party and they sent notices to them alleging overdue. The sister of the Complainant has availed a loan of Rs.3,45,940/- for her business. She has availed the said loan by mortgaging immovable property of one Somanathan. The same property was also linked to the loan availed by the Complainant. The sister of the Complainant, Soumya failed to pay the loan amount and the Opposite Party started action upon this immovable property. Therefore, the Complainant was directed to furnish fresh security. The Complainant was instigated by the members of Prathibha Grama Sree JLG Group in which the father of the Complainant was the president. They filed innumerable complaint before the District Legal Services Authority. The husband of the Complainant had also filed a complaint before the State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. All those complaints have closed as those were false. The Opposite party sent notices to the Complainant due to the default from her to pay the instalments. Therefore there is no cause of action to this complaint and Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from opposite party. Thus, there is no deficiency in their service and hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2. Reliefs and Cost.
5. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, OPW1, Ext.A1 to A3, Ext.B1 and Ext.X1 series. Heard both sides.
6. Point No.1:- Admittedly the Complainant had availed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Opposite Party. It is also an admitted fact that Opposite Party sent two notices to the Complainant calling upon her to remit the loan amount alleging that she is a defaulter. The Complainant filed this complaint alleging that the Opposite party harassed her by sending these notices, even if, there are no dues. The Opposite Party denied this allegation. According to the Opposite Party, the Complainant was a defaulter and she was instigated to file this complaint by the members of JLG and husband of the Complainant. According to the Opposite Party, they sent notices to the Complainant as a defaulter. But, the Complainant did not admit that she is a defaulter. According to her she was regular in paying the instalments.
7. Complainant has given evidence as PW1. The Manager of Opposite Party has given evidence as OPW1 to prove that this is a false complaint. Ext.X1 series contain the loan application and mortgage deed etc. It includes Ext.X1 (h), the account statement of the Complainant. Though, as per Ext.X1 (h), it is seen that the Complainant used to pay the instalment amount, evidently she is not regularly paying the instalment amount. Ext.A2 and A3 are the notices which are challenged by the Complainant. Ext.A2 is the notice dated 14.11.2017. As per Ext.A2, notice the Complainant was directed to pay the dues of Rs.12,849/- within 7 days. The specific case of the Complainant is that even though on 22.04.2017 she paid Rs.22,000/- towards the said loan transaction, the Opposite Party again sent a notice on 06.12.2017 calling upon her to pay the entire loan amount stating that she has not remitted the amount as directed in Ext.A2 notice. Ext.X1 (h) is the account statement of the loan account of the Complainant. It is seen that after Ext.A2 notice, she paid Rs.22,000/- on 24.11.2017. The said payment was on 22.04.2017 as per complaint. But actually, this amount was paid on 24.11.2017. So, the date of payment shown in the complaint may be a clerical mistake. Anyhow, it is evident that the Complainant has not remitted the said amount within 7 days as directed in Ext.A2 notice. Moreover Ext.X1 (h) shows that the Complainant did not pay the instalment regularly. Thus it is established that Complainant is a defaulter. Therefore it cannot be held that the Opposite Party sent Ext.A2 and Et.A3 notices without any reason. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the Opposite Party harassed the Complainant. Except the allegation of sending notices unnecessarily, there are no other allegations against Opposite Party to file this complaint. PW1 admitted that she is a regular customer of Opposite Party and she has not faced any difficulty when dealing with the Opposite Party bank except this time. As per Ext.B1, husband of the complaint filed a complaint before State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Ext.B1 does not show that this is a false complaint as alleged by Opposite party. As per Ext.B1, that complaint was closed with the consent of the husband of the Complainant. So there are no materials to hold that the Opposite Party harassed the complainant in any manner. So the Complainant has miserably failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Hence Complainant is not entitled to get compensation or cost as alleged. So Point No.1 is answered against the Complainant.
8. Point No.2: Since Point No.1 is found against the Complainant, she is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 16th day of March 2022.
Date of Filing:-22.02.2019.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Sandhya. T. K.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Aliyas. K I. Branch Manager.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Bank Account Pass Book.
A2. Copy of Ordinary Notice. Dt:14.11.2017.
A3. Copy of Notice. Dt:06.12.2017.
X1(a). Copy of Loan Application. Dt:12.07.2017.
X1(b). Copy of Pro-note. Dt:12.07.2017.
X1(c). Take Delivery Letter to DPN. Dt:12.07.2017.
X1(d). Copy of Agreement for MSME working Capital
Limited-CC&OD. Dt:12.07.2017.
X1(e). Copy of Letter evidencing Deposit of the
Title Deeds. Dt:13.01.2015.
X1(f). Copy of Link Letter. Dt:12.07.2017.
X1(g). Copy of Letter. Dt:08.01.2018.
X1(h). Copy of Statement of Account. Dt:12.07.2017.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
B1. Order No.1204/B2/2018/WYD/KSCSE&ST. Dt:21.12.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRC, WAYANAD.
